THIS PAPER deals
with a matter of great theological importance. It involves a
discussion of some rather complex details that are all too familiar
to embryologists but may be difficult for the less informed.
I have tried to be lucid and to avoid unnecessary use of jargon,
but have probably over-simplified in some cases. The Paper also
involves some aspects of human genetics that may present problems
to the unfamiliar reader. Yet in both cases the questions involved
are of the greatest importance.
Although evolution is not discussed,
the perceptive reader will see that, though the Paper is short,
it really deals a death blow to the concept of an evolutionary
origin for Adam, and even more (if that is possible) for Eve.
It has been customary for the opponents of evolution to base
their case on the evidence against it which stems from studies
in the life sciences, or from the simple statements in Scripture
in which the actual creation of man is either stated categorically
or is implied. While I believe these contrary evidences are most
important, I believe they can be evaded by those who wish to
evade them, either by saying that the evidence is still ambiguous
in the present state of knowledge or that the word "creation"
must be allowed to include the idea of creating by stages without
specifying how small or how large these stages were. In the latter
case, not a few undoubted Christian men with scientific training
find no serious conflict by arguing that perhaps God created
by an evolutionary process. Many people find this quite illogical
-- but some don't. To my mind, the really crucial challenge to
an evolutionary origin of man is ultimately the theological one.
I have not been able to persuade many of my friends on this point.
Nevertheless, the logic of the Plan of Redemption

pg.2
of 5

makes certain demands
which positively exclude any concept of an animal origin for
Adam or Eve, no matter how many "creative interferences"
are allowed. This Paper really shows that the creation of Adam
was an absolutely unique event by showing in turn what
the nature and constitution of Adam's body must have been in
order to satisfy the requirement for the truly substitutionary
death of Jesus Christ. This is the substance of chapter 1, and
it is essentially a question of embryology.
In chapter 2 a very sensitive problem
is dealt with, namely the time of admission of the soul or
spirit (speaking without precision at the moment) intothe body. I am keenly aware of the legal importance of
this issue and of the divergence of current views. My conviction
is that whatever conclusion is reached, it must square ( 1) with
scriptural statements that are precise and clear, such as Genesis
2:7 or Hebrews 10:4-7 (and with many other New Testament passages)
that do not favour coincidence with mere conception, and (2)
with experimental evidence which now indicates that fertilization
can be "manipulated" at will, as in recent test-tube
experiments for instance, or can occur naturally and yet lead
to the birth of a decerebrate child who does not even possess
the organ of mind which is surely essential to the possession
of soul in the generally accepted sense. Neither of these facts
favour coincidence of a divinely implanted soul with the time
of conception. Whatever conclusion is reached, it must be based
ultimately on the theological statements of Scripture, not on
its poetic or "common parlance" statements. That is
to say, it must be based on definitive rather than descriptive
observations in Scripture. This chapter explores certain aspects
of these matters which are of great theological importance.
In chapter 3 the profound implications
of the taking of Eve out of Adam, rather than creating her separately,
are examined in the light of modern genetics. The issue is crucial
to the subsequent appearance of a Redeemer who was to stand in
the place of all men and it is equally crucial to the
method by which the new life of the believer is introduced and
nurtured by the Holy Spirit. This too, is fatal to the concept
of an evolutionary origin for man.
In Medieval times the test of truth
was not experimental verification, but the ease with which a
particular hypothesis fitted harmoniously into the basic structure
of orthodox doctrine. This is fundamentally true today of the
theory of evolution. If a finding "fits" it is true,
willy-nilly; if it conflicts it is false. Christianity is a system
of beliefs that is embedded in fact and is an integrated whole
in which each part must contribute and be in harmony with the
rest. There is no room

pg.3
of 5

for illogic. It must
be a rigid structure, logically defensible once believed, though
not believed merely because it is logically defensible. As with
all systems of thought the premises are based on faith, but once
having been established they must be built upon with the strictest
adherence to the ordinary law of contradiction -- no statement
may contradict another. As soon as this happens the whole system
becomes questionable. This Paper is an attempt to follow with
strict logic certain clearly definable assumptions about the
creation of Adam (and Eve out of him) which have been held from
the very earliest times to the present day.
The Virgin Birth and the Incarnation
are miracles and beyond scientific analysis, yet not wholly so.
Such analysis as is now possible only increases our wonder without
decreasing the miracle. If there is now within our reach some
added light upon certain aspects of the subject we should not
refuse it. This Paper deals with some of this new light. It does
not reduce the need for the exercise of faith. Faith is still
the basis of understanding, though this faith is largely to be
exercised in the matter of those premises which involve super-natural
agencies at work. But what we now know shows that no element
of our belief is random or arbitrary. The Plan of Redemption
is a perfect plan, perfectly in harmony with what is now known
from genetics and embryology. It is to my mind an exciting story.
The Christian need never apologize for his faith. It has merely
placed him in the position of being far ahead of current scientific
knowledge in this particular respect.
It is very important to emphasize
that the element of miracle is in no way removed merely because
some aspects of the subject have been tremendously illuminated
by modern research. Nor do I believe that the supernatural aspects
of the Virgin Birth and the Incarnation ever will be removed
by further advances in our scientific knowledge. No light is
shed on the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ by pointing
to known cases of animal parthenogenesis induced by special techniques,
because in mammals such offspring are always females and never
males. The virgin birth of a male child is unaccountable, is
in fact theoretically impossible. It must therefore have been
a miracle. And the spirit given to that little body to convert
it from an organism to a Person was, again, something entirely
unique; for by this means God entered into His own created order
in the person of the Lord of the Old Testament. Clearly this,
too, is entirely outside the normal course of things. Thus, although
we may usefully explore the light which modern research has shed
on the whole phenomenon of conception and birth in man, we should
not

pg.4
of 5

for one moment suppose
that we are thereby lessening the element of miracle and making
it easier for the skeptic to believe. Saving faith is not generated
by intellectual persuasion of this kind. We should rather
explore the evidence with a view to enlarging our sense of wonder
that God in His infinite wisdom should have so designed the processes
of conception and birth that He could use them without doing
violence to His own created order that He might enter into our
world of space and time in the likeness of ourselves.
To the Christian with implicit
faith in the Word of God, Bible study can be rather like climbing
the ladder of knowledge in some particular area, only to find,
when reaching the top rung, that it has written upon it a statement
which turns out, when understood in the light of present knowledge,
to have anticipated that present knowledge and to have been there
all along, if we had only taken the trouble to go right up to
the top of the ladder and extrapolate logically.
Not a few may feel that such an
inquiry is improper, irreverent, almost bordering upon presumption,
or even blasphemy. Feelings differ and change with respect to
what is a proper subject for study or open discussion. Centuries
ago it was felt quite improper to investigate the inner workings
of the body. The body was a " temple" of God and should
not be defiled by the scalpel of the over-curious. Reading Irving
Stone's masterfully restored picture of the spirit in which Michelangelo
undertook his first studies in human anatomy by dissecting the
dead, one may feel in a measure how strongly Christian sentiment
was against what today we consider almost commonplace, even to
the extent of televising for the general public what goes on
in the operating room. No doubt sentiments change. We are still
perhaps psychologically shocked, but we are not morally shocked
any more by such things.
Perhaps the subject of this
Paper must be viewed in the same light. Certainly, as will be
abundantly apparent from the text which follows, the life sciences
have uncovered many remarkable facts which bear directly upon
the great truths of Scripture, so that if any man still challenges
what the Scriptures have to say on these basic issues it must
be because of what we have not yet clarified, i.e., because of
our ignorance. Certainly it is not because anything has
been discovered which makes the biblical record less precisely
true. A Christian has nothing to fear on this account.